Source: The Trinity: Evidences and Issues, Robert Morey, Chapter 14, p. 207ff
Jewish literature
Online access to ancient Jewish literature - https://huc.edu/libraries/free-online-resources/free-online-resources-bible-early-writings/
| Before Christ | After Christ |
|---|---|
| Septuagint - translated in Alexandria around 200 BC. | Rabbinic writings |
| Dead Sea Scrolls www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ dssenglishbible.com/ scholarlyeditions.brill.com/dsbo/ libguides.thedtl.org/c.php?g=882174 |
Talmuds |
| Targums targum.info/targumic-texts/ www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh/Targum |
|
| Midrash - commentaries | |
| Pseudepigraphy - more than 65 early Jewish books | |
| 4 Ezra | Mishnah |
| 1 Enoch | |
| 2 Baruch | |
The only way to get from Malachi Matthew is to travel through 400 years of Jewish history. This period of time has been designated by Christian scholars as the "intertestamental period" and the written materials from that period are called "intertestamental literature."
In the strictest sense, the term "intertestamental" would apply only to those Jewish writings that appeared before and during the life of Jesus. The Jewish writings which came after Jesus such as the Mishnah, Talmuds, etc. are usually referred to as "Rabbinic writings." But even this designation can be misleading because much of what is found in the "rabbinic" writings came from pre-Christian traditions. This "intertestamental" material cannot be ignored.The "intertestamental" and "rabbinic" writings viewed together are representative of early Judaism. They supply us with the only written record of what the Jews actually believed about God and the Messiah before, during and after the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. They will either build a bridge linking the two Testaments together or create a wall separating them.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, liberal theologians joined forces with Jewish scholars in declaring that Jesus was a simple Jew in belief and practice and, thus, the "Jesus" described in the New Testament was the mythical creation of the Apostle Paul who derived his concept of the divine Son of God from pagan religions. It subsequently became an unquestioned dogma among liberals that the New Testament's messianic interpretation of the Old Testament was never a part of Judaism before, during, or after Jesus.
This claim was first set forth in 1904 by William Wrede (1859–1906) in his book Paulus and then later in The Messianic Secret. Then Martin Brückner in 1908 stated in Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland that Paul derived his christology from the Greek Mystery religions. This was repeated by Bousset in Kyrious Christos in 1913. It was later adopted by Bultman in his Theology of the New Testament (NY: Scribners, 1951), 1:33FF, and became one of the pillars of modern liberalism.
Conservative scholars have repeatedly pointed out the many errors in and insurmountable problems of the Wrede-Bousset thesis. Dr. Gresham Machen, the best New Testament scholar of his day in The Origin of Paul's Religion (1925), gave a devastating refutation. The Dutch scholar Ridderbos, in his book Paul and Jesus (1958) presented a refutation based on European scholarship. Then in 1981, Seyoon Kim brought all the elements of the issue together in his masterful work, The Origin of Paul's Religion.
Even though Wrede and Bousset developed their theory before, and thus, without the benefit of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important Jewish literature, it has remained a pillar of modern liberalism. They argued, mainly from silence, that no early Jewish writings had been discovered in their day that spoke of the Messiah as the divine Son of God. Thus, Christianity was Gentile and pagan in origin instead of Jewish. Charlesworth comments on Wrede's work:
In the light of our research it is seen to be full of numerous errors... Wrede was amazingly ignorant of Jewish sources, referring to the concept of a hidden Messiah by citing only Justin Martyr and the Gospel of John, and bypassing the classic references to this idea in such works as 4 Ezra. Nowhere does he refer to the messianology found in the Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. It was unfortunately typical of his time for a New Testament scholar to study Greek thought and religion, and to ignore the detailed and fruitful research of such contemporaries as Kautzsch and Charles … his work is sadly anti-Semitic or better anti-Jewish. —The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) p. 34.
Despite the fact that Wrede was ignorant of the early Jewish literature and, thus, his work was based more on fiction than fact, many modern day Jews, Muslims, secular humanists, and Protestant liberals are still using Wrede's thesis as a weapon against the doctrine of the Trinity. They have argued that there is no historical or theological bridge between Malachi and Matthew because the messianic ideas found in the New Testament were never a part of early Judaism. It is assumed that the New Testament concepts of the triune nature of God and the deity of the Messiah are derived from pagan mystery religions.
One example of this liberal dogmatism is seen in the book The Religion of Jesus the Jew by the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes. His entire work is based on two a priori assumptions. First, he assumes that:
the religion of Jesus and Christianity are so basically different in form, purpose and orientation that it would be historically unsafe to derive the latter directly from the former and attribute the changes to a straightforward doctrinal development.
Vermes assumes that he can find the historical Jesus outside of the New Testament. But once you cast aside the New Testament, the only first century references to Jesus left are those found in the Mishnah and the Talmuds. But they viewed Jesus as a false Messiah and heretic who was thrown into hell. (See our appendix on the references to Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud.) In other words, Vermes and those like him do not have a shred of evidence to back up their claims. It is nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" scholarship.
The so-called "Jesus Seminar" of the 1990's was another example of subjectivism and emotionalism taking the place of empirical evidence. Instead of basing their understanding of Jesus upon the first century documents that do exist, they speculated endlessly on the basis of a non-existing Q source and other liberal myths. We must agree with Moshe Bernstein of Yeshiva University (NY), who said:
I think we should talk about things that do exist as opposed to things that don't exist.
In his second a priori, Vermes assumes the validity of the Wrede-Bousset thesis that Paul developed Christianity from the mystery religions of his day:
Paul's powerful, brilliant and poetic imagination creates a magnificent drama, echoing the mystery cults of his age.
Even in 1988, Irvine Zeitlin in his book Jesus and The Judaism of His Time naively assumed that Bultmann's restatement of the Wredo-Bousset thesis was valid:
Jesus (Yeshu) was, of course, a Jew and not a Christian. Jesus was a fully human being and understood as such by the early church. Bultmann, again writes, "Not before the growth of legend on Hellenistic sail was the figure of Jesus assimilated to that of the "divine man."
Of course, Zeitlin gives no primary source material to prove his assertions because no such material exists. It is just one more liberal myth.
We are, thus, confronted with the proposition that Jesus was only a simple Jew of his time and that Paul managed somehow to gain control of the entire Christian Church and turned it into a pagan temple. How and why he did this is never explained. Why the personal companions of Jesus never complained is never explained. Why Paul's writings were viewed as Scripture by the Apostles is never explained (2Pe 3:15-16). And why the first century Jews never used this idea as an apologetic against Christianity is never explained either. As a matter of fact, this liberal dogma has no primary source material to support it and it cannot answer the many serious historical and methodological questions it raises.
Modern liberalism has yet to realize that its fundamental priori assumption, that the New Testament does not reflect early Jewish beliefs before and during the life of Jesus, is erroneous as well as hopelessly outdated. The documentary evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament concept of the Messiah did not originate from Greek mystery religions or some other pagan system of thought. Instead, it is clear that New Testament Christianity is Jewish. The literature of early Judaism builds such a solid bridge from the Old Testament to the New Testament that even the most ardent anti-Christian liberal bigot cannot tear it down.
The naive assumption that the New Testament's understanding of the person and work of the Messiah was unknown to the Jews, but was something novel and new coming from foreign pagan sources, cannot withstand critical scholarship. Several observations make this abundantly clear.
Since the Jews did not complain and the Christians did not explain the concepts of the Messiah that were being applied to Jesus, they must have held to common views. For example, nowhere in the documents do we ever find the Jews objecting to the idea of God having a Son or that the Messiah was the Son of God. Neither did they debate whether or not the Messiah would set up God's kingdom on earth. Thus, the issue which divided them was not the existence of the Messiah, but His identity as Jesus of Nazareth.
Matthew points out that the idea that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem according to Micah 5:2 was not a novel or new interpretation made up by Christians. The Jewish chief priests and scribes held to this opinion long before Jesus was born (Mat 2:4-5). The issue was whether Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. The messianic character of the text per se was never called into question.
Millions of Jews have accepted Jesus as the Messiah because He fulfilled those messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament which foretold his death and resurrection:
And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27)
The appeal of the New Testament did not arise from the introduction of strange and foreign ideas from pagan sources, but from its constant appeal to the traditional Jewish messianic interpretation of the Old Testament. This is why they argued "as it is written" and "that it might be fulfilled" over and over again.
The apologetic of the early Church was powerful because it presented Jesus as the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies, hopes, and longings of the Jewish people. The Christians pointed to the birth, lfie, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the description of the Messiah found in the Old Testament (1Co 15:3-4).
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? Since progressive understanding flows from progressive revelation, if the New Testament's understanding of the Old Testament is correct, then we would expect to find in early Jewish literature a growing awareness of the multi-personal nature of God and the divinity of the Messiah as the Son of God. We would expect to find that the Jewish literature before and during the life of Jesus supplied the authors of the New Testament with the messianic terminology, titles, names, prophecies, and conceptual framework within which they could argue that Jesus was the Messiah. This should be evident in the Jewish literature following Jesus as well.
On the other hand, if the typical liberal view is correct, then we would not expect to find the Jewish literature using the messianic imagery and prophecies that are found in the New Testament. After all, if Paul invented Christianity from pagan sources and his understanding of the person and word of Jesus the Christ comes more from Athens than Jerusalem, then we would not expect to find the Jewish literature supporting his messianic interpretation of various Old Testament texts.
Indeed, the entire liberal hermeneutic is build upon the assumption of a Gentile and pagan origen for the New Testament's messianic interpretation of the old Testament. But if the New Testament, and the apostle Paul in particular, is found to be Jewish instead of Gentile and rabbinic instead of pagan, one of the main pillars of liberal theology is overturned.
We are not saying that these Jewish works are inspired. No. They were never a part of the Jewish or Christian canon of Scripture. The New Testament never quotes them as its religious authority for the Messiahship of Jesus. They quoted the Old Testament because it alone was the Word of God.
The importance of the ancient Jewish writings lies in their historical worth. They give us the Jewish context of the early Church before, during and after Jesus and, thus, supply us with the knowledge of why the New Testament was written the way that it was. This is why the original King James Version included the Apocrypha.
What do we find when we examine the Sepuagint, the Targums, the Midrash, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigraphy, the Mishnah, and the Talmuds? Do they provide us with a historical bridge that links the two Testaments together or do we find a wall that separates them? Do we find what a Trinitarian expects to find or what an anti-Trinitarian expects to find? Whose views are verified by these ancient Jewish documents?
After the Babylonian Captivity, many Jews could no longer understand the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. This problem led to two ancient translations, the Aramaic Targums and the Greek Septuagint.
The Hebrew Bible was first translated by Alexandrian Jews into Greek around 200 B.C It is called the "Septuagint" in honor of the seventy Jews who translated it. The authors of the Greek New Testament frequently quoted from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew text and it soon became the 0ld Testament text of the Early Church.
The Septuagint translated the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ "Messiah" as χριστός "Christ" in such places as Psalms 2:2 and Daniel 9:26. The use of the word "Christ" set the precedent for all the Jewish literature which came after the Septuagint. It means "Anointed One."
The English word "Messiah" is not a translation, but a transliteration of the Hebrew letters in the word מָשִׁיחַ. If it had been translated it would read "Anointed One.'
The English word "Christ" is not a translation either. It is a transliteration from the Latin word Christi which was itself a transliteration of the Greek word χριστός.
Jerome had the habit of taking Greek words and transliterating them into Latin instead of translating them. This error was then compounded by the English translators who transliterated the Latin into English. Such words as "angel," "baptism," "Messiah," and "Christ"' are clearly misnomers. But we are stuck with them for better or worse.
The New Testament's use of the Septuagint determined its concept of the Messiah in many ways. For example, when the Alexandrian Jews translated Isaiah 7:14 from the Hebrew to the Greek, they wrote:
This is what is quoted in Matthew 1:21. The preciseness of the Greek word παρθένος “virgin” overcomes any vagueness in the Hebrew text. The “young woman” in question was a virgin and not a married woman. Thus, the idea of the Messiah coming through a virgin’s womb came from Isaiah 7:14 and not from some pagan religion.
The Septuagint at times paraphrases the Hebrew instead of translating it. On some of these occasions, it is clear that the translators emphasized that the text was speaking of King Messiah who was to come. One such passage is Isaiah 52:13–53:12, which speaks of the “servant of the Yahweh” suffering and dying for our sins.
Modern scholars have pointed out that the vocabulary and grammar of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Septuagint clearly indicate that its translators interpreted this passage as a reference to a coming Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of the people of God.
Other passages that have a clear messianic interpretation in the Septuagint text include Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, Psalms 2, Micah 5:2, etc.
The authors of the New Testament followed the Septuagint in its messianic understanding of these classic Old Testament texts. If the New Testament is "pagan," then so is the Septuagint.
The second ancient Jewish translation is called the Targums or the Aramaic Bible. It is actually more a paraphrase than a translation. It is now available to the English reader for the first time.
The Jewish scholar Samson Levey pointed out that the Jews who translated the Targums never had the slightest doubts about their messianic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The Tarmugists inserted references to the person, work, sinlessness, names, titles, kingdom, suffering and death of the Messiah into the text of Scripture without any hesitation whatsoever. For example, there are 32 passages in Targum Jonathan which have a clear messianic interpretation.
It is no longer questioned that the Targums contain much pre-Christian material. The post-Christian interpolations are insertions in a basic pre-Christian text. Christian scholars are just beginning to recognize the importance of targumic studies for the historical context of the New Testament itself.
Since a full discussion of the Targums is far beyond the scope of this chapter, we can only give a few examples of the Old Testament texts which the Targums view as messianic and and which were formative for New Testament christology. We will first give the text from the Hebrew Bible and then the Targum on that text will be presented.
Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: "in the days of King Messiah"
The Fragmentary Targum: "in the days of King Messiah"
Targum Neofiti I: "in the day of King Messiah"
Genesis 49:10-12
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. He ties his foal to the vine, and his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, and his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are dull from wine, and his teeth white from milk.
Targum Onkelos: "until the Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs, and whom nations [i.e., Gentiles] shall obey."
Targum Pseudo-Jonathon: "Kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah, nor scribes teaching the Law, from his descendants, until the time the King Messiah comes, the youngest of his sons, because of whom the people will pine away. How beautiful is the King Messiah who is to arise from among those of the house of Judah... How beautiful are the eyes of the King Messiah."
Targum Neofiti I: "until the time King Messiah shall come, to whom the kingship belongs; to him shall all the kingdoms be subject. How beautiful is King Messiah... How beautiful are the eyes of King Messiah."
4Qpatr: "until the Messiah of justice, the sprout of David, comes; for to him and to his seed has been given the covenant of kingship." (quoted in n. 24, vol. 1A, p. 220 in Targum Neofiti I.)
Numbers 24:8
"God brings him out of Egypt, he is for him like the horns of the wild ox. He shall devour the nations who are his adversaries, and shall crush their bones in pieces, and shatter them with his arrows."
Palestinian Targum: "their Redeemer shall be from themselves ... and the kingdom of the Messiah shall be exalted." (quoted on p. 40, Targum Neofiti I)
Numbers 24:17
"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come ferth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from Israel, and shall crush through the forehead of Moab, and tear down all the sons of Sheth."
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: "when a mighty king of the house of Jacob shall reign, and shall be anointed Messiah, wielding the mighty scepter of Israel."
Numbers 24:20
And he looked at Amalek and took up his discourse and said, "Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: "in the days of King Messiah"
Psalms 45:3-8
"Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O Mighty One, in Thy splendor and Thy majesty! And in Thy majesty ride on victoriously, for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; Let Thy right hand teach Thee awesome things. Thine arrows are sharp; The peoples fall under Thee; Thine arrows are sharp; The peoples fall under Thee; Thine arrows are in the heart of the King's enemies. Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou has loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows. All Thy garments are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made Thee glad."
The Targum to the Hagiographa: "Your beauty, O King Messiah, surpasses that of ordinary men. The Spirit of prophecy has been bestowed upon your lips.... Your throne of glory, O Lord, endures forever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom."
Isaiah 9:6-7
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this."
The Isaiah Targum: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and he will accept the law upon himself to keep it, and his name will be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever, the Messiah, in whose days peace will increase upon us."
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
The Isaiah Targum: "Behold, my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper, he shall be exalted and increase, and shall be very strong. Just as the house of Israel hoped for him many days ... so shall he scatter many kings; kings shall be silent before him ... the righteous shall be exalted before him ... as a man of sorrows and appointed sicknesses ... he will beseech concerning our sins and our iniquities for our sake will be forgiven ... by his teaching his peace will increase upon us, and in that we attach ourselves to his words our sins will be forgiven us ... they shall see the kingdom of their Messiah ... by his wisdom shall he make innocents to be accounted innocent, to subject many to the laws; and he shall beseech concerning their sins ...because he handed over his soul to death, and subjected the rebels to the law; yet he will beseech concerning the sins of many, and to the rebels it shall be forgiven for him."
Micah 4:8
"And as for you, tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you it will come--Even the former dominion will come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem."
The Targum of the Minor Prophets: "And you, O Messiah of Israel, who have been hidden away from the sins of the congregation of Zion, the kingdom is destined to come to you."
Micah 5:2
But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
The Targum of the Minor Prophets: "And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from old, from ancient times."
Several things are clear just from the few references given above:
... there is a definitely unified and coherent thread of Messianic thought that stretches from the beginning to the end of the Targum's rendering of the Prophets.
The idea that the Messiah will be hidden away, possibly from the time of Creation, untouched by the sins of Israel, is a reflection of apocalyptic rabbinic thinking, as well as Christian.
The designation for God most characteristic of all the Targums is "the Memra of the Lord." This is found 314 times in NF and 636 in Nfmg; in Frag. Tgs. about 99 times; it Ctg text 97 times in texts published by Kahle; in Onq 178 times and 322 Ps. J.
The "Memra of the Lord" is described in the Targums as doing the same things that the New Testaments describes Jesus and the "Word of God" doing. For example, just as the Targums on Genesis 1:1 say that the Memra created the world, John 1:1-3 says that the Word created the world. Just as the Targums attribute the theophanies to appearances of the Memra in human form (see the Targums on Gen. 3:8; 18; 19:24; 32:30, etc.), the New Testament attributes the theophanies to the pre-existent Word of God (John 12:38-41).
Obviously, the "Memra of the Lord" is more important for the origins of the New Testament's concept of Jesus as the
"Word of God" than Philo's pagan Greek philosophy.
The expression "the Holy Spirit" occurs in Nf Gen 41:38; 42:1 (also in P); Exo 31:3 (corrected); Exo 35:31; Num 11:17,25-26,29; 14:24; 24:2; 27:18 — thirteen times in all. It also occurs in Nfmg Gen 31:21 and Exo 2:12 (also in PVB). In Onq. the only designation is "the spirit of prophecy"; the use of "holy spirit" in Onq Gen 45:27 is possibly due to the influence of midrashim. The expression "the Holy Spirit" is found fifteen times Ps.-J. and "the spirit of prophecy" eleven times.
An analysis of the Targums reveals that the Holy Spirit is alive and active and doing the kinds of things (e.g. speaking) which only God can do. The personhood and deity of the Spirit of God is manifest in the way the Targums speak of Him.
Biblical scholars are only beginning to understand the influence of the Targums on the hermeneutic operating in the New Testament. It is increasingly clear that the authors of the New Testament had access to pre-Christian Targums as well as the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. McNamara comments:
In the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch we have in the main material coming down from pre-Christian times which must be studied by everyone who wishes to understand the state of Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity. And we possess this material in a language of which we can say that it is similar to that spoken by the earliest Christians. It is material, the importance of which can be scarcely exaggerated.
Post-exilic Judaism began to produce commentaries on the Scriptures in order to promote uniformity of belief. These commentaries are called the Midrash Rabbah or the Midrashim. They clearly reflect Jewish beliefs before and after the advent of Christianity. Their influence on the New Testament has been noted by both Jewish and Christian scholars.
We have counted over two hundred references in the Midrash to the Messiah. Like the Targums, these messianic interpretations are set forth with certainty as well as clarity. There was no controversy or confusion because these were common beliefs among the Jews.
We will examine only a few of these passages. Please not that several biblical passages are often put together and given a Messianic interpretation. All references are keyed to the Soncino edition of the Midrash:
Enough has been presented to demonstrate that the Midrash follows the messianic interpretations found in the Septuagint and in the Targums. The Messiah is both King and Redeemer. He is "the child" who would be Lord (Isa 9:6). He is "the Christ" mentioned in Psalms 2. His deity is revealed by His name "Yahweh" (YHWH) (Jer 23:6). He will enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey (Zech 9:9). He will suffer and die for our sins (Isa53). Then He will be hidden from us. The Gentiles will follow Him, etc.
Anyone familiar with the New Testament immediately recognizes the importance of these messianic prophecies. Please note that both Psalms 2 and Isaiah 9:6 are messianically interpreted and that the "servant of the Lord" in Isaiah 53 who suffers for our sins is clearly identified as the Messiah.
Jesus fulfilled the very prophecies which the Jews predicted the Messiah would fulfill. Was He born at Bethlehem? Did He ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, etc? What He did not fulfill at His first coming He will fulfill when He returns according to the New Testament.
For over a century, the liberals have been quite dogmatic that the origins of the New Testament must be located in pagan sources. But this a priori assumption was an argument from silence developed before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the modern translations of intertestamental literature. In fact, the leading liberal scholars who developed the theory never actually examined any of the primary source materials and, thus, they often spoke out of sheer ignorance.
When the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was first announced in the early 1950's, liberal theologians assumed that these Scrolls would prove that the New Testament's concept of the Messiah came from pagan sources. Books were rushed into print which stated that this was the case, before most of the Scrolls had been translated. One such writer was the liberal clergyman Rev. A. Powell Davies whose book The Meaning Of The Dead Sea Scrolls was published in 1956. From the outset, Davies assumed the Wrede-Bousset thesis. Even though he had never seen a single Scroll, he dogmatically states:
There were many Pagan deities during the time of Jesus and afterwards for whom quite similar claims were made and in whose names were preached quite similar doctrines. Mithras was a Redeemer of mankind; so was Tammuz, Adonis and Osiris. The view eventually taken on Jesus as a redeemer was not a Judaic concept; nor was it held by the first Christians in Palestine. The Messiah the Jews and the Judaic Christians expected was not the Son of God but a messenger from God, not one who saved by blood-atonement but one whose salvation came from his rule on the earth in a Messianic kingdom.
Dr. William LaSor, one of the well known scholars who actually worked on the Scrolls, was shocked to see such utter nonsense being set forth by liberal clergymen. His comments bear repeating:
More recently we have seen the appearance of pulp works that seek to ridicule Christian ministers and belittle Jesus Christ -- all in the name of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I refer to the works by A.P. Davies and C.F. Potter. If it were not for the fact that tens of thousands of persons, chiefly young peple, are taking these seriously, I would take no notice of them. They have no claim to Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship whatsoever, and their arguments against New Testament Christianity are at least forty years old and have been answered many times.
Dr. LaSor's warning is still needed today because liberals, humanists, atheists, and Muslims are still using the Wrede-Bousset thesis as an apologetic against Christianity. For example, although Thomas Sheeman's book The First Coming (1986) was written thirty years after Davies' book, he still assumes that:
Christian evangelists rewrote their vision of Jesus and made him into the cosmic redeemer who had conquered the malevolent powers of the world.
According to Sheenan, Christianity derived its christology from the surrounding pagan religions and not from early Judaism. Like Davies and Potter, Sheenan was not a Scroll scholar. Their books were based entirely on secondary sources written by other liberal who likewise depended entirely on secondary sources.
Books written by Allegro (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith) and by Baigent and Leigh (The Dead Sea Scroll Deception) are so far from the truth that they are ridiculous. The well-known Scroll scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer went on record saying:
Such misinformation is a part of a larger pattern of errors and uninformed statements that make the Baigent and Leigh book itself the deception par excellence about the Dead Sea Scrolls!
In reality, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been a boon for evangelical theologians and a bane for liberal theologians because the Scrolls demonstrate continuity between the Testaments and that the deity of the Messiah was a Jewish concept and not something imported from paganism.
In order to escape this logical conclusion, some liberal scholars have now suggested redating the Dead Sea Scrolls from B.C. to A.D. and that Christians wrote the Scrolls instead of Jews! But as Prof. F.F. Bruce points out in his book Jesus & Christian Origins Outside The New Testament:
The question has repeatedly been raised if the Qumran documents make any reference to Jesus or Christian origins. The answer is NO ... practically all the Qumran tests dealing with religious topics are assigned on palaeographical grounds to the pre-Christian decades.
Why would anyone claim that the early Jewish literature was really written by Christians in the first century? The obvious reason is that the Scrolls ad other Jewish literature from that time period fully support the New Testament in its messianic interpretation of the Old Testament. The early Jewish literature is so similar to early Christian beliefs that either we must accept the Jewish origin of the New Testament or the Christian origin of the early Jewish literature.
Against all scientific evidence, a few liberal scholars have tried to turn the Dead Sea Scrolls into Christian writings. This attempt to escape the evidence caused Prof. Schiffman of New York University to state:
As to the theory itself, as far as I am personally concerned, it is a lot of nonsense.
Liberals have tried the redating game before. The Prayer Manasseh was re-dated from pre-Christian to post-Christian because it "felt" Christian to them. But its pre-Christian Jewish character has now been demonstrated beyond all doubt. The same will be shown for the Scrolls.
Now that all the Scrolls have been published, it is quite clear that the material, which lay unpublished for several decades, was not kept back because they disproved Christianity, but because the reverse was true. The Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament found in the Scrolls once again demonstrates that the New Testament was perfectly in line with the expectations of early Judaism. The Wrede-Bousset thesis is no longer tenable.
Having studied the primary source material for some time, there are certain things found in the Scrolls which should be noted. Anti-Trinitarians may not like it, but these things are the facts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Those who walk in them, in the time of wickedness until there arises the Messiah of Aaron. (CD Col. XII, 23) ... until there arises the Messiah of Aaron and Israel. He shall atone for their sins ... (CD Col. XIV, 19) For the heavens and the earth will listen to his Messiah, and all that is in them will not turn away from the holy precepts. (4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q5212) Frag. 2 col. 11:1)
If there were no general expectation in first century Judaism that the Messiah was about to appear, as some liberal still claim, how could the various false Messiahs which arose during that period gain such large followings? Zeitling comments:
Messianic expectations were so high among the people that several pretenders managed successfully to attract to themselves large numbers of followers.
...the Scrolls share the common understanding of the centuries around the turn of the era, that such texts as Isaiah 11 and Numbers 24 should be interpreted with reference to the Davidic messiah.
In 1QM X, 6-7, Numbers 24:17-19 the typical messianic interpretation is given. This is also given in another Scroll:
A star has departed from Jacob, and a scepter has arisen from Israel. He shall crush the temples of Moab, and cut to pieces all the sons of Seth. (4Q175 [4Qtest] 12-13)
2 Samuel 7:12-14 and Amos 9:11 are applied to the Messiah in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174 [4QFlor] 10-13):
YHWH declares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me. This refers to the Branch of David, who will arise ... on Zion in the last days, as it is written: I will raise up the Hut of David which has fallen. This refers to the Hut of David which has fallen, who will arise to save Israel.
This same Scroll applies Psalms 2 to the Messiah:
Why do the nations become agitated and the peoples plot nonsense? The kings of the erth agree and the rulers conspire together against YHWH and against his Messiah. (4QFlorilegium (4Q174 [4QFlor]), 18-19)
The "Prophet" whose coming was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is the Messiah according to 4QTestimonia (4Q175 [4QTest], 5-8). Genesis 49:10 is also interpreted as referring to the Messiah:
A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, there will not lack someone who sits on the throne of David ... Until Messiah of justice comes, the Branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of royalty over his people for all everlasting generations (4QGenesis Pesher (4QpGen), Col. V. 1-6)
The prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 is fulfilled by the Messiah according to 4QIsaiah Pesher (4Q161 [4Qpls] Frags. 8-10 col. III, 11-25)
The interpretation of the word concerns the Shoot of David which will sprout in the final days, since with the breath of his lips he will execute his enemies ... he will rule over all the peoples...
The Messiah Jesus will destroy his enemies "by the breath of his mouth" and then rule over all the peoples according to 2Th 2:8.
Another Scroll even states that the Messiah will be killed:
The Trinitarian finds in the early Jewish literature the theological terminology and ideas that explain why the New Testament was able to set forth the triune nature of God and the deity of the Messiah with such ease. The progress of doctrine which took place during the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew ultimately led to the early Church's formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Now the truth came to be known. New Testament christology was not derived from pagan sources, but from contemporary Judaism. James Charlesworth summarizes what modern liberal scholarship now admits:
The language of the New Testament is not a new creation; it is the crystallization of the living language used in Jewish circles in which the Old Testament was the sacred word of God. Christianity, it is clear, must not be defined as a religion divorced from its origins. Christianity not only inherited the Scriptures of the Jews; it was formed both by the Jewish means of interpreting these sacred works and by Jesus and his earliest followers, all of whom were Jews. And the interpretation occurred within Judaism; the earliest decades of Christianity, and perhaps its first one hundred years, were spent within, then alongside of, Judaism. —The Old and the New Testament, ed. James Charlesworth and Walter Weaver (Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993), p. 76.